The typology of variable-force modality

The typology of variable-force modality

Igor Yanovich

Universität Tübingen

ZAS Berlin November 11, 2014

Variable force: an exotic novelty?

St’át’imcets (Salish) variable-force deontic ka:

(1) lán-lhkacw already-2sg.subj

ka deon

áts’x-en see-dir

ti det

kwtámts-sw-a husband-2sg.poss-det

‘You {must/can/may} see your husband now.’

Initial impressions: variable force is something strange, perhaps

typologically very different from what we find in European languages.

The reality, visualized

Variable force is not uniform semantically (≥3 major types) Variable force is not geographically restricted

Variable force appears in modal systems of different shapes

Variable force may diachronically precede or follow “usual” modality

The landscape of variable force

At least three major types:

Type 1: unambiguous variable force (=lvariable force proper)

(St’át’imcets, Gitksan, Old English*motan) Type 2: genuine♦-ambiguity

(Middle English*moten, Old Ukrainian) Type 3: familiar♦ormodality in a system unusually shaped

(Nez Perce)

Types 1 and 2 clearly have subtypes with different semantics:

Type 1: St’át’imcets is different from Old English Type 2: Middle English is different from Old Ukrainian

Cases with unclear type attribution: Danish; Baltic-Sea ‘get’; Washo.

Single-meaning vs. ambiguous variable force

What variable force may look like: Old Saxon

Old Saxon môtan (cf. Dutch moeten, German müssen):

(2) endi and

ûs us

is is

firinun urgent

tharf, need

<...> that that

wi we

it it

an in

thesumu this

lande land

at from

thi you linôn

learn môtin.

môtan.subj

(Heliand 2428-30)

‘And there is an urgent need for us <...>

that wemaylearn from you (=Christ) in this land.’

(3) thes that

môtun môtan

gi you.pl

neotan use

forð, forth

sô huue sô whoever

gerno gladly

uuili will

gode god

theonogean, serve, uuirkean

do

aftar after

is his

uuilleon.

will

(Heliand 1144-6)

‘Youmustuse that (=the saving force) from now on, every one of you who wants to serve God gladly and to do after God’s will.’

Three possibilities for variable-force semantics

Possibility 1: variable-force modals have semantics different from either ♦ or , with no perfect translation correlate

Possibility 2: variable-force modals are ambiguous between ♦ and Possibility 3: variable-force modals are regular ♦ s or s, but the overall system works so that their distribution ends up being wider

It turns out that each of the three possibilities is actualized in some language.

But how do we find out which we have in language X?

Case study 1: Old English vs. Middle English *motan

Old English *motan

(4) bruc enjoy

þenden while

þu you

mote

motan.3sg.subj

manigra many

medo rewards

(Beo 1177-8)

‘Enjoy, while youmot, many rewards’

The (near) consensus story:

1 Earliest recorded OE:*motanambiguous between♦and

2 Very few-uses in Early OE (close to 0%)

3 Slow growth of-uses, reaching 100% in the 15-16th cent.

[Ono, 1958], [Tellier, 1962], [Visser, 1973], [Goossens, 1987]...; cf. [Solo, 1977]

Translation correlates of OE *motan

Many OE and OHG texts are free translations from Latin, so we can look at the modal, if any, in Latin originals.

In early OE prose (Alfredian translations, late 9th/early 10th cent.), modal correlates are rare:

Cura Pastoralis: 1 modal in Latin (♦possum) out of 22 OE instances of*motan

Boethius: 5 instances out of 40, all♦(3licetand 2possum)

The early laws of Alfred (the same one) and Ine were translated into Latin in Quadripartitus (early 12th century).

We have 21 modal Latin translations out of 22.

♦: 19 cases (licetandpossum),: 2 cases (debeo)

Translation correlates of OHG *muozan

[Lühr, 1997]: a similar situation in early OHG translations from Latin.

Latin necessity constructions likeoportetanddebeoget many translations (sculan,gilimpfit, etc.), but not with*muozan But non-♦examples for*muozanalso exist:

(5) [Lühr, 1997, ex. (25)]:

joh mit thiu giwerkon thaz thu uns es muazis thankon

‘und damit wollen wir wirken, damit du [=Christ] uns es

lohnen mußt’

Questions for the standard analysis: regularity

Meaning change is regular.

For m¯ otan in Germanic, there is indeed regularity: from a similar situation in OE, Old Saxon, OHG, we get similar situations in English, Dutch, German.

But regular ♦ modals don’t just become ♦ - ambiguous, and they don’t turn into s either!

⇒ there must be something special about *motan and its cognates

Questions for the standard analysis: specific mechanism

Meaning change involves semantic reanalysis.

But why would speakers reanalyze ♦ as ? Two explanations in the literature:

Through permission implying obligation(e.g. [Traugott, 1989])

“You may go” from an authority implies that “you must go”.

...but then any♦-deontics would be able to turn into

Through “must not” ≈“may not” (e.g. OED)

The speakers reanalyze the negative instances, and after that take care of the positive cases.

...but all♦deontics have fixed scope¬>♦([van der Auwera, 2001]), so again, any♦is predicted to be able to change into ...and besides, won’t work for German, asnicht müssenis¬>

...finally, where would the pressure to reanalyze positive cases come from?

Variable-force analysis of [Yanovich, 2013, Ch.4]

Old English *motan

not a ♦ , but a non-ambiguous variable-force modal

⇓

Early Middle English *moten

♦ - ambiguity, with more frequent

⇓ Early Modern English must

pure : the less productive ♦ -uses have been lost

Two kinds of uses for *motan?

6 is a typical “possibility example”, while 7 is a typical “necessity use”.

(6) Ac but

se that

se that

ðe which

unwærlice unwarily

ðone that

wuda wood

hiewð, hews,

&

and sua so

his his

freond friend

ofsliehð, slays, him

to.him bið is

nidðearf necessary

ðæt that

he he

fleo flee.subj

to to

ðara those.gen

ðreora three.gen

burga city.gen

anre, one.dat

ðæt that

on in

sumere some

ðara of.those

weorðe become.subj

genered, saved,

ðæt that

he he

mote

motan.prs.subj libban;

live

‘But he who unwarily hews wood and by that slays his friend, it is necessary for him that he flee to one of those three cities, so that he be saved in one of them, so that hemote

live.’ (CP:21.167.15)

(7) ealneg always

hi they

wepað, weep

&

&

æfter after

ðæm the

wope weeping

hi they

gewyrceað obtain

ðæt that

hi they

moton motan.pres eft

again wepan.

weep

‘always they are weeping, and after the weeping they make it so that theymotonweep

again.’ (CP:54.421.14)

The main idea of my “collapse” analysis

In both 6 and 7, both ♦ and translation may be appropriate.

Imagine a set of accessible worlds uniform with regard to proposition p.

Given that set, ♦ p ⇔ p. Either statement says the same.

Now, in natural language it’s not so clean because of the pragmatics.

When people talk about necessity, they often imply there is a force imposing it.

When they talk about possibility, they often imply somebody is interested in that possibility.

⇒ unlike in logic, people may find one rendering better than the other.

Possibility-necessity collapse: the intuition

(8) a. Hu how

mæg can

he he

ðonne then

beon be

butan without

gitsunge, avarice ðonne

when he he

sceal had.to

ymb about

monigra many

monna men’s

are property

ðencan, think gif

if he he

nolde would.not

ða ða when

he he

moste

motan.sg.past.subj ymb about

his his

anes?

only

(CP:9.57.19)

b. Translation by [Sweet, 1871]:

“How can he be without covetousness when he has to consult the interests of many, if formerly he would not avoid it when hehad toconsult his own interests alone?”

c. Translation by H.W. Norman, printed in [Giles et al., 1858]:

“How can he be without covetousness when he must think about many men’s sustenance, if he would not when hemightthink about his own alone?”

Not much contrast between the ♦ and readings:

it was an open possibility for the subject to think only about their own benefit, but they also actually thought only about themselves before being promoted.

Possibility-necessity collapse: the intuition

(6) A typical “possibility example”:

‘But he who unwarily hews wood and by that slays his friend, it is necessary for him that he flee to one of those three cities, so that he be saved in one of them, so that hemote

live.’ (CP:21.167.15)

would≈mote≈may

(7) A typical “necessity example”:

‘always they are weeping, and after the weeping they make it so that theymotonweep

again.’ (CP:54.421.14)

have to≈moton≈may

A focused Old English dataset: Alfredian prose

Early OE prose: core Alfredian texts (late 9th/early 10th cent.)

C(ura) P(astoralis)

Bo(ethius)

Sol(iloquies)

Best possible shot at geographical and temporal consistency for the period.

72 instances of*motan

Why use a focused dataset I

1

Dialectal variation may be huge

Present-Day English, the use of different deontics across the British Isles:

from [Tagliamonte and Smith, 2006]

Why use a focused dataset II

2

Change may be very fast

The deontic system of Toronto English changed in 3 apparent-time generations:

from [Tagliamonte and D’Arcy, 2007], Toronto English

Alfredian *motan: the collapse analysis

What we can say about *m¯ otan in the Alfredian dataset:

Observation

In all 72 examples, virtually no contrast between the ♦ and readings.

With a regular♦,♦p does not entail thatphas to happen.

(9) Youmaytake this apple. But it’s not that you have to.

(10) My electric billscanbe paid online, though I never tried.

In Alfredian OE, possibilities expressed bymagan‘can, may’ and aliefed‘permitted’ work the same way, being consistent with¬p.

But notmotan!

Alfredian *motan: the collapse analysis

Analysis for motan(p)

Acc. relation: metaphysical modal base, stereotypical ordering source Presupposition: ♦ p → fut(p)

Assertion: ♦ p

Metaphysical modal base: all w

sharing the history of the actual w Stereotypical ordering source: w

where things go normally

E.g., the person in question doesn’t win a lottery, etc.

How the collapse analysis works

(6) A typical “possibility example”:

‘But he who unwarily hews wood and by that slays his friend, it is necessary for him that he flee to one of those three cities, so that he be saved in one of them,so that he mote

live.’ (CP:21.167.15)

w: “purpose” worlds where the purpose clause is true

⇓

w⁰: metaphysical correlates for eachw, sharing its history

⇓

w⁰⁰: those metaphysical correlates where things proceed normally Presupposition: either he lives in allw⁰⁰, or doesn’t live in allw⁰⁰ Assertion: he lives in allw⁰⁰

Paraphrase: “given that either in all possible futures lives, or in all of them he dies, it’s necessary for him to flee to one of those cities so that hemay (would)live”.

How the collapse analysis works

motan(p) conveys both inevitability (in the presupposition) and openness of possibility (in the assertion)

Variable-force translation effect:

Inevitability is stressed⇒translation

Openness of possibility is stressed⇒♦translation

Rarity of *motan:

Few contexts would support the collapse presupposition.

And indeed,*motanis rare in Alfredian OE:

≈70*motanvs.≈700sculan(>shall) and≈1000magan(>may)

Alternative explanations?

Could Alfredian *motan be genuinely ♦ / ambiguous?

Nope. If it were, we would find*motan not only where♦and collapse, but also where “must(p)” is different from “may(p)”

Could Alfredian *motan be regular ♦ ?

My analysis says that♦andcollapse in the context where*motan occurs. So a usual♦without a collapse presupposition would be just as good.

But first, without the presupposition we cannot explain why*motan only occurs in collapse contexts.

Second, we know that atsomepoint,*motan cannot be analyzed as a pure♦any longer. So saying it was a♦in Alfredian OE doesn’t add any explanatory power.

Modal flavor of *motan

(11) Metaphysical: worlds sharing the same history It might rain every day this summer.

(12) Circumstantial: worlds where a given set of facts is true

During the next hurricane, this tree can easily fall onto my roof.

(13) Deontic: worlds where the rules are followed You may take this apple.

Circumstantial and metaphysical are close: if the facts include everything about the world, the two collapse

Deontic and metaphysical may be hard to distinguish in texts, especially when it is about what God or fate allow

I found no examples that would clearly exclude the metaphysical

analysis. Hence my claim about the modal flavor. But it’s more a

reasonably-supported hypothesis than a proven fact.

The shape of the Alfredian modal system

Alfredian Old English

ability circumstantial deontic

♦ magan magan

n/a sculan sculan

metaphysical/circumstantial/deontic

♦ + collapse presupposition motan

On the one hand, we have fairly regular ♦ and modals.

On the other, we have a special, very restricted variable-force modal.

A focused Middle English dataset: ‘AB language’

Early ME prose: ‘AB language’ (first half of 13th cent.)

A group of texts written within a few miles from each other. Clearly the product of a single common writing tradition, written in the same dialect and sharing orthography.

Seinte Margarete (SM)

Ancrene Wisse (AW)

SM predates AW by several decades.

76 instances of*m¯oten.

The Middle English descendant of *motan

Try to translate Middle English *moten in this passage:

(14) Hwen-se whenever

ye you

moten moten

to to

eani any

mon man

ea-wiht give

biteachen, the

the hand

hond not ne

comes cume not

nawt out

ut

“Whenever you mot give anything to anyone, the hand shouldn’t

come out.” (AW 2:192-3)

This is a most typical kind of use of moten in AW.

The ME dataset: Ancrene Wisse and Seinte Margarete

58 instances of moten in Ancrene Wisse

5 main types of uses:

unavoidability (circ.,≈modernhave to)accounts for>50%

moral instruction (deontic,≈modernmust,ought) wish, prayer

“open possibility”

under attitudes (grant,swear, etc.), with unclear semantic import

18 instances of moten in Seinte Margarete

A slightly different distribution:

no strict demarcation between prayers and other♦types moral-instruction uses are emerging from circumstantialuses

Deontic reading

“Moral instruction”: deontic

(15) < ... >teke this, hamotyet thurh hire forbisne ant thurh hire hali beoden

yeoven strengthe othre, ant uphalden ham, thet ha ne fallen i the dunge of

sunne. (AW 3:259)

‘...besides this, shemustalso through her example and through her holy prayers give strength to others, and hold them up so that they do not fall in the filth of sin.’

...but Early ME *m¯ oten is not yet a pure

“Open possibility”: in≈5 out of 58 examples in AW, and more inSM, we seem to have a genuine existential meaning:

(16) Þah þe flesch beo ure fa, hit is us ihaten þet we halden hit up. Wa we motendon hit, as hit is wel ofte wurðe, ah nawt fordon mid alle;

(AW 3:284-5)

‘Though the flesh is our foe, it is commanded to us that we hold it up.

Woe wemaydo it as it is well often worthy of, but we should not destroy it altogether.’

...but Early ME *m¯ oten is not yet a pure

Prayers:

(17) I þe wurðgunge, Iesu Crist, of þine tweof apostles, þet Ichmoteoueral folhin hare lare, þet Ichmotehabben þurh hare bonen þe tweolf bohes þe

bloweð of chearite, (AW 1:174-6)

‘In honor, Jesus Christ, of your twelve apostles,mayI everywhere follow their teaching,mayI have through their prayers the twelve branches that blossom with love’

*m¯ oten under attitudes

In attitudes: exact meaning unclear, but not empty; close to prayers

(18) Thet ich thurh the lare of the Hali Gastmotehalden foreward, he hit yetti

me thurh ower bonen. (AW 3:644-5)

‘That I, through the teaching of the Holy Spirit,maykeep the agreement, let Him (=God) grant it to me through your prayers.’

⇒this type of use is most frequent in the late entries of Petersborough chronicle (underask,agree,forbid,grant,decree)

*m¯ oten’s modal neighbors in the AB language

In OE, *m¯ otan was outside of the “regular” modal system:

ability circ. deontic

♦ magan magan non-modal

— sculan sculan

circ./deontic

♦+ collapse presup. motan

But in the 13th cent., *m¯ oten is an integral part of the system.

moten

circumstantial necessity deontic necessity various non- ahen(>modernought)

only deontic uses, mostly reportative sculen(>modernshall)

deontic uses, both performative and reportative future uses

“subjunctive” uses (≈modernwould)

*m¯ oten in Ancrene Wisse: true ambiguity

5 main types of uses: circumstantial , deontic , prayer ♦ -like use,

“open possibility” ♦ , unclear use under attitudes

The non-readings are less so.

Consider prayers such as “May I everywhere follow the teaching of the apostles”.

Here,mayis not a typical♦semantically. But at the same time, oncemotenloses its other♦uses completely, it is replaced in prayers withmay.

In Alfredian OE, all types of uses could be explained with one meaning.

Not anymore in the AB language! and non- cannot be unified.

⇒ ME *moten is a genuinely ambiguous variable-force modal.

Intermediate summary

Old English *motan: type 1b

non-ambiguous “collapse” variable force, little flavor flexibility

Middle English *moten: type 2a

truly ambiguous between differentand♦readings, significant flavor flexibility

Empirical differences:

In type 2, individual examples allow straightforward♦- disambiguation.

In type 1, pseudo-and pseudo-♦uses appear with the same modal flavors (naturally so, as they are in fact just one use). But in type 2, and♦do not have to come in pairs.

E.g., one can hardly argue for circumstantial-♦uses for ME*moten.

A different kind of unambiguous variable force

St’át’imcets

St’át’imcets (Salish family) is the only known language

where all modals are variable-force

We saw deontic ka in 1. And here is metaphysical/future kelh:

(19) lh-tq-álk’-em-an

comp-touch-string-mid-1sg.conj

ka-gúy’t-kan-a

circ-sleep-1sg.subj-circ kélh fut

tu7 then

‘If I drive Imight(accidentally) fall asleep.’ [Rullmann et al., 2008, (20)]

(20) o, oh

xílh-ts-kan do-caus-1sg.subj

kelh fut

áti7, deic

nilh foc

t’u7 just

s-lh-nás-acw

nom-comp-go-2sg.conj í7wa7

accompany

‘Oh, I’lldo it, if you come along.’ [Rullmann et al., 2008, (25)]

The place of St’át’imcets in the variable-force typology

The modal system of St’át’imcets:

deontic metaphysical/future epistemic and evidential

♦- ka kelh k’a; ku7(?); -an’(?)

Properties of variable force in St’át’imcets

“Possibility” and “necessity” readings with the same flavors, suggesting no true ambiguity

“Necessity” readings are the default ([Rullmann et al., 2008, Sec.2.4]) With negation: at least “possibly not”, sometimes also “necessarily not”

No collapse presupposition! See 19 and 20.

⇒adifferentkind of unambiguous variable force than in Old English

Old English vs. St’át’imcets

Alfredian Old English ability circ. deontic

♦ magan magan non-modal

— sculan sculan

circ./deontic

♦+ collapse presup. motan

St’át’imcets([Rullmann et al., 2008]) deontic future various epistemic

♦ ka kelh k’a; ku7(?); -an’(?)

Consultants selectparaphrases for variable force modals more often

A usual modal in an unusual system

Nez Perce

Nez Perce (Sahaptian): a circumstantial/deontic variable-force o’qa.

[Deal, 2011]’s analysis for o’qa

Observation 1: in downward-entailing contexts,o’qabehaves as a♦ Observation 2: no would-bedual foro’qa

Claim: o’qais a regular♦

Deriving variable force: without a dual, no scalar implicature¬ Speaker sayso’qa(p). That simply means that there’s an accessible world wherepis true.

Suppose thatp is true in all accessible worlds. In English, you can assertmust(p)in this case. So when you say insteadmay(p), it’s implicated that there are accessible¬p worlds.

But in Nez Perce, there is no way to saymust(p). Even if all worlds are p-worlds, the only expression you have iso’qa.

The place of Nez Perce in the variable-force typology

Nez Perce vs. St’át’imcets:

In Nez Perce,o’qawith negation only means “necessary not”

⇒not as St’át’imcets variable-force modals do

Nez Perce vs. Old English:

Interaction with negation is similar Nez Perce has no collapse presupposition

Moreover, Old English*motanhas a would-be dual: sculan

Nez Perce vs. Middle English:

Interaction with negation is different: in Middle English, both scopes are attested

Modal flavors forand non-readings of ME*motendo not have the same range of modal flavors, unlike♦anduses ofo’qa

Diagnostics for type 3 variable force

St’át’imcets: type 1a

Old English *motan: type 1b Middle English *moten: type 2a

Nez Perce o’qa: type 3, usual ♦ , but without a dual Empirical differences:

In DE contexts, a type-3♦shows it is really not a(unlike with type 1a; but the collapse type-1 meaning also results in¬♦inferences).

Type 3♦andreadings appear with the same modal flavors (like type 1, but unlike type 2).

If a variable-force modal has a would-be dual, it cannot be type 3 (so Old English*motancannot be type 3, but Nez Perceo’qacan).

“Triangular” ambiguous variable force

Ukrainian: a HAVE-based variable-force modal

Proto-Slavic èì³òè > Old Ukrainian èìàòè > Mod. Ukrainian мати In Old Ukrainian (14-16 centuries):

necessity (at least deontic) futurate

possibility (at least deontic)

In Pre-Modern Ukrainian (late 19-early 20 centuries):

deontic and epistemic necessity futurate

possibility

My sources: The book of Lutsjk castle, 1560-1;Documents from Volynj, 16th century; the letters of Lesya Ukrajinka, late 19th cent.; the parallel

Ukrainian-Russian corpus at the Russian National Corpuswww.ruscorpora.ru.

maty and its cousins

Proto-Slavic èì³òè ‘have’ ⇒ future and/or obligation in many Slavic

futurate

very few non-futurate meanings Middle Russianim³ti(14-17th centuries):

futurate (sometimes with modal overtones) however, virtually no clear modal meanings lost by the 17th-18th century

Old Czechjmieti(13-15 centuries):

obligation futurate

Old Polishmiec(14-15 centuries):

obligation futurate

possibility — but not clear if it’s the same as in Old Ukrainian

Pre-Modern Ukrainian: deontic necessity maty

(21) Що what

ж part

до about

моєї my

повiстi, novel

то, part

далебi, truly

не not

знаю, know.1sg

як how

з with

нею it буде,

will.be бо because

не not

розумiю, understand.1sg

як how

маю maty

думати think

про about

вiдносини relations

“Зорi”

of.Zorya до to

мене me

‘Regarding my novel, I truly don’t know what will happen with it, as I don’t understand what Ihave tothink about how “Zorya” [a literary journal]views me.’

NB: a possibility translation would also make some sense here (what I may think), but hardly a future one.

Pre-Modern Ukrainian: future maty

(22) Сiчова Sich

кна-кна kna-kna

зайнята is.occupied

страшенно terribly

зборами with.gathering

радикалiв, of.radicals

що which мають

maty бути be

близько close.to

апрiля, April

через because.of

те that

кна-кна kna-kna в in

ажитацiї, excitement

немов as.if перед

before

виборами.

elections

‘The Sich kna-kna(family term for Ukrayinka’s brothers —IY)is greatly interested by the gathering of radicals whichwilltake place some time around April, and because of that the kna-kna is excited as if before the elections.’

Not pure future, but ratherplanned futureandpredicted future.

NB: a necessity translation would also make some sense here (the elections must occur around April), but not a possibility one.

Pre-Modern Ukrainian: possibility maty

(23) Ну, well

та this

es this

ist is

eine an

alte old

Geschichte, story

i, and

певне, surely

вона it

Вам to.you

так so

вже already сприкрилась

bored

досi, until.now

але but

мене me

жаль pity

бере, takes

що that

у at

нас us

на in

Українi Ukraine нiяк

in.no.way не not

скiнчаться end

одвiчнi eternal

сiї those

спори, quarrels,

та and

й part

як how

мають maty скiнчитись,

end

коли if

сперечники quarrelers

одно one

одного another

не not

розумiють.

understand

‘Well,es ist eine alte Geschichte, and surely by now you’ve had enough of it already, but still it pities me that for us in the Ukraine, those eternal quarrels never end, and indeed howcouldthey end if the quarrelers don’t understand each other.’

NB: a future translation possible (how they would end), but not a necessity one.

No reading “it’s abstractly possible” for such examples

Instead: “There are enough resources for the possibility to be realizable”.

The loss of possibility maty

Present-Day Ukrainian speakers often do not give possibility

paraphrases for what I call possibility maty.

“What Imatyto do?” (=‘What can I do?’).

I used a parallel Ukrainian-Russian corpus to find out when that happened. The loss occurred around the mid-20th century.

(24) (1905) Так Then

це this

тота that

одна one

рiч, thing

що which

має maty

бути be.inf

для for

всiх all

вас you

добра?

good

⇒(1951) Значит, это и есть та единственная вещь, которая может всем принести пользу?

‘Then this is that single thing whichcanbe of use for everyone?’

In the Russian translation, moč is used to render maty, which is an

unambiguous ♦ modal.

Preliminary semantics for Pre-Modern Ukrainian maty

Obligation maty(p): in all worlds where the current world’s obligations are met, p takes place.

Future maty(p): in all worlds that develop according to the current plans or predictions, p takes place

Possibility maty(p): the preconditions are met for bringing p about in every accessible world (where one would try doing so)

There are discussions in the literature as to whether ability modals are pure♦s, and the conclusion is that they are in fact more complex. See [Portner, 2009, pp. 201-3] and references therein.

Variable force maty in Old Ukrainian

Two examples from a short gift deed for a property, by Mikhailo Svinuskiy to his servant Pavlo Chernevskiy (year 1569):

(25) Necessity: After (save God) my mortal hour, then he himself with that said property Voininmaty.pres.3sg serve my wife Fedora Fedorovna until her death.

(26) Possibility: That servant of mine Pavlo Chernevskiy himself, (his) wife, children and descendants of his,maty.pres.3sg keep and use that property foreverh...i and he himself, (his) wife, children and descendants are free to give away, sell, write off, and deal with that property in their best interest.

Futurate uses are not hard to find either.

(They are easy to identify in conditionals: “If it maty.cf.impers to ever happen thatp, then...” ≈‘If it would ever happen thatp, then ...’)

Different kinds of ambiguous (=type 2) variable force

For ME *moten, no clear futurate uses.

In Slavic in general, futurate uses are common for maty, incl. Ukrainian.

When ME loses ♦ uses, all that remains is pure .

When Ukrainian loses ♦ , we retain stable obligation-futurate ambiguity.

In Germanic, *motan developed along roughly the same lines.

In Slavic, the Ukrainian case is definitely not universal, and possibly unique.

⇒ We need more research to figure out what parameters of variation exist between type-2 variable force systems.

But we can already say that they differ empirically.

The landscape of variable force

Three major types:

Type 1: unambiguous variable force (or variable force proper) Type 2: genuine♦-ambiguity

Type 3: familiar♦ormodality in a system unusually shaped

Types 1 and 2 clearly have subtypes with different semantics:

Type 1: St’át’imcets vs. Old English

Type 2: Middle English vs. Pre-Modern Ukrainian

Variable force and diachrony

English: type 1 → type 2 → regular Other Germanic seem similar

Ukrainian: ‘have’ → type 2 with futurate → with futurate

Other Slavic for the most part didn’t develop the variable-force stage

Variable-force of different kinds may be diachronically related to regular modality.

Some variable-force modals seem to have predetermined trajectories

(Germanic); others allow for many possibilities (Slavic).

More variable force modals

Danishmåtte([Brandt, 1999, pp. 51-54]): apparently a variable-force modal developed from the cognate ofmayandmögen

‘GET’-based modals in the languages along the Baltic-Sea coast (Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Estonian, smaller Finnic, Latvian): in some languages, both♦ anduses occur.

Norwegianfå([Askedal, 2012]), Swedishfå([Viberg, 2002], [Viberg, 2012]), Finnish saada([Kangasniemi, 1992], [Viberg, 2002]), Estoniansaama

([Tragel and Habicht, 2012]), Latviandab¯ut([Daugavet, 2014]), as well as modals in other Finno-Baltic [Kehayov and Torn, 2005].

‘GET’-based modals in South-East-Asian languages seem to also feature such ambiguity: [Vittrant, 2004, p.313] for Burmeseya’, [van der Auwera et al., 2009]

for a brief general discussion

Washo copula -e?- [Bochnak, 2014a], [Bochnak, 2014b]: when it appears with the same agreement as in individual-level characterizing sentences (“I am a doctor”), -e?- may be translated with♦andfor a wide range of modal flavors.

The current outlook on variable force (repeated)

Variable force is not uniform semantically (≥3 major types) Variable force is not geographically restricted

Variable force appears in modal systems of different shapes

Variable force may diachronically precede or follow “usual” modality

Healey, Daniel Donoghue, Regine Eckardt, Kai von Fintel, Olga Fischer, Martin Hackl, Irene Heim, Sabine Iatridou, Natasha Korotkova, Ian MacDougall, Lisa Matthewson, Paul Portner, Katrina Przyjemski, Donca Steriade, Sali Tagliamonte, and Elizabeth Traugott. If not for Lauri Karttunen, I wouldn’t have learned of [Kangasniemi, 1992].

Some parts of this work were presented at University of Ottawa, Georgetown, Rutgers, NYU,Systematic Semantic Changeat UT Austin, SALT at UC Santa Cruz, University of Amsterdam, and Rutgers. The project benefitted greatly from the comments I received at those venues. All remaining mistakes are my responsibility only.

Corpora used:

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English prose (YCOE) Penn Parsed Corpus of Early Middle English (PPCEME)

Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC) Russian National Corpus (www.ruscorpora.ru)

The extensive commentary toBoethiusin [Godden and Irvine, 2009] was of great help in identifying the correspondences between the Latin original and the OE translation.

Askedal, J. O. (2012).

Norwegianfå‘get’: A survey of its uses in present-day Riksmål/bokmål.

Linguistics, 50(6):1289–1331.

Bochnak, R. (2014a).

Underspecified modality in Washo.

InProceedings of Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of Languages of the Americas 18.

Bochnak, R. (2014b).

Variable force modality in Washo.

Poster at NELS 45.

Brandt, S. (1999).

Modal verbs in Danish, volume 30 ofTravaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague.

C. A. Reitzel.

Carnicelli, T. A. (1969).

King Alfred’s version of St. Augustine’s Soliloquies.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

d’Ardenne, S. (1977).

The Katherine Group edited from MS. Bodley 34.

Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres”, Paris.

Daugavet, A. (2014).

Acquisitive modals in Latvian.

Talk at Chronos 11, Pisa, Italy.

Deal, A. R. (2011).

Modals without scales.

Language, 87(3):559–585.

Giles et al., editor (1858).

The whole works of king Alfred the Great: with preliminary essays illustrative of the history, arts, and manners of the ninth century.

Bosworth & Harrison, London.

Godden, M. and Irvine, S. (2009).

The Old English Boethius.

Oxford University Press.

Goossens, L. (1987).

Modal tracks: the case ofmaganandmotan.

In Simon-Vanderbergen, A.-M., editor,Studies in honour of Rene Derolez, pages 216–236. Vitgeuer, Gent.

Kangasniemi, H. (1992).

Modal expressions in Finnish.

Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki.

Kehayov, P. and Torn, R. (2005).

Modals in finnic.

Talk at the 38th Societas Linguistica Europea,

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkodu.

ut.ee%2F~pdkehayo%2Fmodal_power_presentation.ppt&ei=J_P6UvXuCM6B7QbK2IHoBQ&usg=

AFQjCNG2M5f4CNlgmdC7HAV_76ZdV_FjNA&sig2=iaO7w5VjW6zgkCs0DkGfPg&bvm=bv.61190604, d.ZGU&cad=rja.

Lühr, R. (1997).

Zur Semantik der althochdeutschen Modalverben.

In Fritz, G. and Gloning, T., editors,Untersuchungen zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen, pages 159–176. de Gruyter, Tübingen.

Millett, B. (2005).

Ancrene Wisse. A corrected edition of the text in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 402, with variants from other manuscripts.

Oxford University Press.

Drawing on the uncompleted edition by E.J.Dobson, with a glossary and additional notes by Richard Dance.

Ono, S. (1958).

Some notes on the auxiliary*motan.

Anglica, 3(3):64–80.

Portner, P. (2009).

Modality.

Oxford University Press.

Rullmann, H., Matthewson, L., and Davis, H. (2008).

Modals as distributive indefinites.

Natural Language Semantics, 16(4):317–357.

Solo, H. J. (1977).

The meaning of*motan. A secondary denotation of necessity in Old English?

Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 78:215–232.

Sweet, H. (1871).

King Alfred’s West-Saxon version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, volume 45, 50 ofEarly English Text Society.

Oxford University Press.

Tagliamonte, S. and D’Arcy, A. (2007).

The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective.

English World-Wide, 28(1):47–87.

Tagliamonte, S. and Smith, J. (2006).

Layering, competition and a twist of fate. deontic modality in dialects of English.

Diachronica, 23(2):341–380.

Tellier, A. (1962).

Les verbes perfecto-présents et les auxiliaires de mode en anglais ancien: (VIII^eS. - XVI^e S.).

C. Klincksieck, Paris.

Tragel, I. and Habicht, K. (2012).

Grammaticalization of Estoniansaama‘to get’.

Linguistics, 50(6):1371–1412.

Traugott, E. C. (1989).

On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change.

Language, 65(1):31–55.

van der Auwera, J. (2001).

On the typology of negative modals.

In Hoeksema, J., Rullmann, H., Sánchez-Valencia, V., and van der Wouden, T., editors,Perspectives on negation and polarity items, pages 23–48. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

van der Auwera, J., Kehayov, P., and Vittrant, A. (2009).

Acquisitive modals.

In Hogeweg, L., de Hoop, H., and Malchukov, A., editors,Cross-linguistic Studies of Tense, Aspect, and Modality, pages 271–302. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Viberg, Å. (2002).

Polysemy and disambiguation cues across languages: The case of Swedishfåand englishget.

In Altenberg, B. and Granger, S., editors,Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches, pages 119–150. John Benjamins.

Viberg, Å. (2012).

Language-specific meanings in contrast: A corpus-based contrastive study of Swedishfå‘get’.

Linguistics, 50(6):1413–1461.

Visser, F. T. (1963-1973).

An historical syntax of the English language.

E. J. Brill, Leiden.

Vittrant, A. (2004).

La modalité et ses corrélats en birman dans une perspective comparative.

PhD thesis, Paris 8.

Yanovich, I. (2013).

Four pieces for modality, context and usage.

PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.